About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5
senator mccain will be talking about syria very shortly. do either of you have any thoughts on that? >> i'm coming back >> senators talking about the passage of the russian trade bill, the vote on the floor of the senate a short while ago was 92-4. a look -- the senate continues in session with a vote coming up likely this afternoon, possible vote on the -- we had bep told there was a news conference happening on c-span. >> good afternoon, i'm here with my colleagues from the senate, senator leeber and senator graham and we are deeply disturbed by reports that assad may have weapononized some of his stores of chemical and biological agents and prepared them for use in aerial bombs. these reports suggests that assad's forces are waiting for orders. if true, these reports may mean that the united states and our allies are facing the prospect of use of weapons of mass destruction in syria and this may be the last warning we get. time for talking about what to do may now be coming to a close and we may be left with an awful and very difficult decision. whether to continue on the said lines an
the iranians the opportunity to divert to talk about afghanistan, bahrain, syria. so the agenda has to remain narrow as a means of focusing issue of our principle concern, meaning proliferation. that's one school of thought. the second school of thought is if the agenda is broader you can have agreement on some issues. that has never been resolved, and when the issue remains unresolved the status quo remains. should it be considered as a last ditch effort? i don't think so. we always talk about years of decision, the year of this or that. we have more time on this issue. we always think of it as not having enough time, yet somehow there's always more time. somehow his issue seems to have within its urgency a degree of time flexibility. i don't know how else to explain that. we have had bilateral discussions, and i suggest if there's a bilateral conversation,. >> marina, i thought i'd bring you in on this. ray said we need have a sense of modesty about what we hope to achieve. i'd be interested to hear your opinion on that and what you hope for from president obama and the united states in ter
, democratic future for syria. these are in line with what we and our international partners would result from the formation of the commission last month. as we look at ongoing efforts to support the syrian people, let me be clear 24e678 united states stands with the syrian people in insist that can any transition process result in a peaceful, unified, democratic syria in which all citizens are protected and a future of this kind cannot inlewd al-assad. >> [inaudible] >> that's correct. we provide significant assistance to the syrian people, we proside significant, not lethal, assistance to the opposition. but our position on providing lethal aid has not changed. >> to foe low up -- >> i've got folks in the back. >> defense secretary suggested the syrian government has preparations of chemical weapons and the administration is not as concerned about this as they were last week, is that accurate? and what has changed? >> i'm not going to get into assessments beyond what secretary of defense pa net -- panetta said. i would simply reiterate our clear warning to the assaad regime about the potenti
is the opportunity to divert and talk about afghanistan and bahrain and syria. the agenda has remained narrow as a means of focusing the issue of our principal concern, namely proliferation. the second school of thought suggests the agenda is broader and perhaps you can have agreements on other issues that would mitigate the debt -- disagreements of the nuclear issue. as far as i can tell, that has never been resolved. when an issue remains not result, the status quo tends to prevail. given the fact that the issue of the bilateral conversation is introduced as a last-ditch effort, it is likely to remain more focused. should be considered a last- ditch effort? i don't think so. we always talk about the year of this or the year of that. we always think of it as not having enough time. yet there is always more this issue seems a degree of time flexibility. we have had bilateral discussions before. i suspect there is a bilateral conversation that it will attend the discussion. said a moment ago we need to have a sense of modesty about what we hope to achieve. i would be interested to hear what yo
the opportunity to divert and talk about afghanistan or by iran or syria. they say the agenda has to remain narrow as a means of focusing issue on our principal concern which is proliferation. the second school of thought suggests if the agenda is broader, perhaps you can have agreements on other issues that would mitigate the agreements on the nuclear issue. that particular concept has never been resolved. when an issue remains unresolved, the status quo tends to prevail. given the fact that the issue of bilateral conversation is introduced as a last-ditch effort, it is likely to remain more focused. should be considered as a last- ditch effort? i don't think so. we talk about years of decision. i think we have more time on this issue. we always think of the issue as not having enough time and being urgent but somehow there is always more time. in 2008, this issue was important and it had an urgency but it has time flexibility. we have had bilateral discussions before also in 2009. if there is a bilateral discussion [inaudible] >> marina, ray said a moment ago we need to have a sense of modesty a
Search Results 0 to 4 of about 5